IVV vs NBGX
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Neuberger Berman Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or NBGX?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.8%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | NBGX |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.44% |
| AUM | $882.6B | $15M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.39% |
| Holdings | 508 | 112 |
| YTD Return | +14.70%Best | +10.62% |
| 1Y Return | +17.46%Best | +11.05% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.21% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.71% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.3%Best | 15.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8%Best | -21.6% |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $13,586Best | $12,772 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.1%Best | 52.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Neuberger Berman ETF Trust |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Dec 18, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 19, 2024 to Oct 7, 2026 (1.8 years).
IVV vs NBGX growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.8 years both funds cover.
IVV vs NBGX Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Neuberger Berman Growth ETF (NBGX) is an ETF from Neuberger Berman ETF Trust. Over the past year IVV returned +17.46% while NBGX returned +11.05%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.70% versus a gain of 10.62% for NBGX.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NBGX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 12.3% for IVV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -18.8% for IVV and -21.6% for NBGX. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while NBGX charges 0.44%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $44 annually, a gap of $41 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.39% for NBGX.
Holdings Overlap
50.7% of IVV's money is in holdings NBGX also owns. 84.9% of NBGX's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of NBGX is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
45 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 55 in NBGX, against full books of 508 and 112.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for NBGX that do not appear in our book for IVV (2.4% of the fund), and 452 for IVV that do not appear in NBGX (48.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IVV | Weight in NBGX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.00% | 10.36% | 2.36% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.39% | 4.49% | 2.90% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 8.85% | 5.85% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.57% | 5.26% | 0.31% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.15% | 5.77% | 3.62% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.80% | 4.10% | 0.30% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.59% | 5.17% | 2.58% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.66% | 2.66% | 1.00% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.34% | 2.86% | 1.52% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 0.93% | 2.50% | 1.57% |
84.9% of NBGX is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or NBGX?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while NBGX charges 0.44%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $41 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or NBGX?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.46% vs +11.05% for NBGX, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IVV annualized +18.56% vs +14.56% for NBGX. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or NBGX?
NBGX has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 12.3% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% vs NBGX -21.6%.
Should I hold both IVV and NBGX?
IVV and NBGX have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and NBGX?
84.9% of NBGX's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 84.9% of NBGX's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 45 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 55 in NBGX.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or NBGX?
IVV yields 1.06% while NBGX yields 0.39%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NBGX better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. IVV is less concentrated, with 38.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.